Does the surge makes Bush look like he really wants to win?

[GreenTea]

How can Republicans win if we lose in Iraq?

It's clear that Bush knows perfectly well there's no possibility of "winning" anymore, so apparently he's seeking in Iraq exactly what Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger sought in Vietnam before the 1972 election: a face-saving "decent interval" before the virtually inevitable collapse of the U.S.-backed government.

By 1971, Nixon and Kissinger understood that "winning" in Vietnam was no longer in the cards — so they shifted from trying to win the war to trying to win the next election. As Nixon put it in March 1971: "We can't have knocked over brutally … " Kissinger finished the thought " … before the election." So Nixon and Kissinger pushed the South Vietnamese to "stand on their own," promising we'd support them if necessary. But at the same time, Kissinger assured the North Vietnamese — through China — that the U.S. wouldn't intervene to prevent a North Vietnamese victory — as long as that victory didn't come with embarrassing speed.

The surge makes Bush look, as Goldberg suggests, like he really wants to win, even as he refuses to take the necessary and honest steps to mitigate the terrible damage we've already done. The surge buys time — and meanwhile, the Democratic Party is placed in the same untenable position it was in during the last stages of the Vietnam War.

Bush's "surge" is the "decent interval" redux. It's too little, too late, and it relies on the Iraqis to do what we know full well they can't do. There is no realistic likelihood that it will lead to an enduring solution in Iraq. But it may well provide the decent interval the GOP needs if it is to survive beyond the 2008 elections.

If it backs Bush's feckless plan, it loses credibility with the voters, who hate the war. But if it opposes the escalation, it will be attacked for undermining the military. Ann Coulter offered a preview last week: "Democrats want to cut and run as fast as possible from Iraq, betraying the Iraqis who supported us and rewarding our enemies — exactly as they did to the South Vietnamese.

At this point, the Republicans win by losing in Iraq — as long as they can blame the loss on the Democrats. And unless they find a way to refuse to play the game, the Democrats will just lose.

The Democrats need to break out of the script the White House has written for them and remind Americans that the war in Iraq is a dangerous distraction from other pressing threats to U.S. security, such as nuclear proliferation and the rise of militant Islam worldwide. They need to emphasize that withdrawal from Iraq isn't about "defeat" — it's about shifting our troops, our money and our energy to the real challenges that the Bush administration is ignoring or exacerbating.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks12jan12,0,62141.story?track=tothtml

[notadmblnd]

1. No, it's a half assed attempt at hanging on and dragging it out

the little pissant is going to leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

[AlinPA]

2. It makes him look like he is more stupid. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. if 160,000 were insufficient in the fall of 05, why would they be

sufficient in the spring of 07?

I am amazed that there are people who are buying this.

[Bobbie Jo]

4. No, he just wants to war....n/t

[Done]

5. The neocons are not trying to hold on...

till the 2008 election. Even that isn't possible anymore. They are trying to hold on until they can start a war with Iran.

[tjwash]

6. No. It makes him look like a stubborn spoiled loser who can't fix his own mess.

As for them blaming it on the Democrats, this should not surprise anyone in the least. That's all the "party of personal responsibility" knows how to do. The entire time they have occupied the White House they blamed the Democrats for everything.

The public is very aware that this is all bullshit, and made their voices loud and clear last November by putting the Dems back in charge of the House and Senate.

[LaPera]

7. It does indeed make him look like he really wants to "win"....

considering who Bush wants to reach, the political moderates, the dense American male hawks, the racist who believe they are all just 'raghead' terrorist, the corporations, the media & the right-wing talking heads, most republicans and so on. That 33% plus that is always on his side and many moderates who lean right...that's the audience he's playing to.

Even if many of the same people think he's wrong and the surge won't work...many still believe that he wants to win...but those same people don't understand the real reason, the huge profits being made.

Certainly the progressives and liberals see right through the bullshit and know the war for profit is the real reason he wants to prolong the war as long as possible and unfortunately he will.